Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"Our Nation's Most Important Verb Conjugation Is All About Elizabeth Warren"
Our Nation's Most Important Verb Conjugation Is All About Elizabeth Warren
12/15/14
Warren says she's not running for president. Let's try this question a new way.
Elizabeth Warren said it again, and again. She's not running for president. This time, Warren was talking to NPR's Steve Inskeep, who like many in Washington, pointed out that Warren keeps using the present tense when she describes her presidential aspirationsleaving open the possibility that she might decide to run in the future, like in the first quarter of 2015.
INSKEEP: You're putting that in the present tense, though. Are you never going to run?
WARREN: I am not running for president.
INSKEEP: You're not putting a "never" on that.
WARREN: I am not running for president. You want me to put an exclamation point at the end?
The interview caught the attention of both the right and the far leftwith the Republican National Committee blasting out the remarks in an email where they noted that "Democratic insiders aren't buying" her denials. Within minutes, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee also focused on Warren's words, shooting out an email that recounts the work that the group has done for her. "The way for Democrats to inspire the public is to give Americans the debate about big ideas that we deserveand that means following Elizabeth Warren's lead," said Stephanie Taylor, the committee's co-founder.
This debate about the senator's choice of verb tense has been going on since at least last year, when the New Republic floated the notion that a Warren candidacy would amount to a "nightmare" for Hillary Clinton. Shortly after that piece hit the newsstands in late 2013, the Boston Globe's Noah Bierman questioned Warren at length during a news conference. Bierman honed in on her verb choice, got the now-standard rebuff, and then tried another angle of attack that Washington journalists might find more fruitful to copy: Will Warren promise to finish her six-year term in the Senate? (She's up again in 2018.)
Warren's answer in December 2013: "I pledge to serve out my full term."
Since then a number of groups have been trying to change Warren's mind, including the Ready for Warren super-PAC, MoveOn.org and a group of former staff to President Barack Obama. She also took center stage over the weekend arguing against the $1.1 trillion cromnibus legislation because of riders that water down regulations on financial institutions, which is partly what prompted Inskeep to revisit the verb conjugation question.
It's a quandary for any politician, who generally are advised to never-say-never to the presidential question. After all, no one can predict with certainty the dynamics of a race.
Leaving that tiny amount of wiggle room keeps her relevantand leaves the national media and her legions of supporters scrutinizing her wordswithout exposing her to the criticism she would attract during a national campaign. That national network gives her power, it's useful for raising cash, for flooding the Senate phone lines when a key piece of legislation is being debated and filling auditoriums when she's out campaigning. (We don't see photos of half-empty Warren events, unlike another star Democrat.)....
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-15/our-nations-most-important-verb-conjugation-is-all-about-elizabeth-warren
12/15/14
Warren says she's not running for president. Let's try this question a new way.
Elizabeth Warren said it again, and again. She's not running for president. This time, Warren was talking to NPR's Steve Inskeep, who like many in Washington, pointed out that Warren keeps using the present tense when she describes her presidential aspirationsleaving open the possibility that she might decide to run in the future, like in the first quarter of 2015.
INSKEEP: You're putting that in the present tense, though. Are you never going to run?
WARREN: I am not running for president.
INSKEEP: You're not putting a "never" on that.
WARREN: I am not running for president. You want me to put an exclamation point at the end?
The interview caught the attention of both the right and the far leftwith the Republican National Committee blasting out the remarks in an email where they noted that "Democratic insiders aren't buying" her denials. Within minutes, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee also focused on Warren's words, shooting out an email that recounts the work that the group has done for her. "The way for Democrats to inspire the public is to give Americans the debate about big ideas that we deserveand that means following Elizabeth Warren's lead," said Stephanie Taylor, the committee's co-founder.
This debate about the senator's choice of verb tense has been going on since at least last year, when the New Republic floated the notion that a Warren candidacy would amount to a "nightmare" for Hillary Clinton. Shortly after that piece hit the newsstands in late 2013, the Boston Globe's Noah Bierman questioned Warren at length during a news conference. Bierman honed in on her verb choice, got the now-standard rebuff, and then tried another angle of attack that Washington journalists might find more fruitful to copy: Will Warren promise to finish her six-year term in the Senate? (She's up again in 2018.)
Warren's answer in December 2013: "I pledge to serve out my full term."
Since then a number of groups have been trying to change Warren's mind, including the Ready for Warren super-PAC, MoveOn.org and a group of former staff to President Barack Obama. She also took center stage over the weekend arguing against the $1.1 trillion cromnibus legislation because of riders that water down regulations on financial institutions, which is partly what prompted Inskeep to revisit the verb conjugation question.
It's a quandary for any politician, who generally are advised to never-say-never to the presidential question. After all, no one can predict with certainty the dynamics of a race.
Leaving that tiny amount of wiggle room keeps her relevantand leaves the national media and her legions of supporters scrutinizing her wordswithout exposing her to the criticism she would attract during a national campaign. That national network gives her power, it's useful for raising cash, for flooding the Senate phone lines when a key piece of legislation is being debated and filling auditoriums when she's out campaigning. (We don't see photos of half-empty Warren events, unlike another star Democrat.)....
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-15/our-nations-most-important-verb-conjugation-is-all-about-elizabeth-warren
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
12 replies, 1066 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
12 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"Our Nation's Most Important Verb Conjugation Is All About Elizabeth Warren" (Original Post)
RiverLover
Dec 2014
OP
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)1. She's Running!
I love her!
[font size=48]Go Warren!!![/font size]
pkdu
(3,977 posts)2. Really? What's her position on war crime trials for Bush&Cheney? Nt
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)4. What are anyone's who might run for president?
????
I don't know, do you?
pkdu
(3,977 posts)5. You don't?....why not?.....aren't you one of these excoriating Obama for not charging
Bush and Cheney?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)7. Not really. It's not going to happen, so I can't get upset about it.
What I care about is what will happen moving forward. I guess we'll know soon enough EW's position on torture. If she's all for it, I won't vote for her. Promise. But I'm not worried. She's actually a true liberal.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)11. She is going to name Hillary the new Attorney General, and then....
...there won't even be a trial.
The two criminals will be disappeared.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)12. Cute non-answer.....to a question you and others don't want asked. Nt
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)3. hmmmm, I just don't know...
Not!
I love her too!!
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)6. Gary Hart 2008!!...
Darcy Richardson 2012!!
Sid
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)8. Al Gore 2004?
morningfog
(18,115 posts)9. Who did you vote for in 2008 and 2012?
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)10. Very good Q. nt